Judgment : None for the Appellants in First Appeal no. 220 of 2007. Hence, the said First Appeal no. 220/2007 stands dismissed for default. 2. Heard Shri Vivek Rodrigues, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants in First Appeal no. 90 of 2007. 3. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment dated 28.12.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Civil Suit No. 281/2004, whereby the counter claim filed by the Appellants came to be dismissed. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Respondents filed a suit praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs: “a) For declaration that the entries existing in the column “Name of the Occupant” of the survey records of the suit property bearing survey no. 11/1 of Village Cormonem of Sanguem taluka except the name of Plaintiff no. 1 are erroneous and requires to be deleted and striked out. b) For directions to the Defendants to delete and strike out the name of Government from the column “Name of the Occupant” from the survey records of the suit property bearing survey no. 11/1 of Village Cormonem of Sanguem taluka and for direction further to delete and strike out the words “Government lessee” recorded erroneously prior to name of the Plaintiff no. 1 from the column “Name of the occupant” of the survey records of suit property.” 5. Along with the written statements, the Appellants filed a counter claim seeking following reliefs: “a) That it be declared that the Govt. of Goa is entitled to record the name of Govt. of Goa in the occupants column of survey no. 11/1 of Village Cormonem of Sanguem Taluka having a total area of 1,82,450 square metres and accordingly the name of Govt,. Be recorded in occupants column of said survey no. 11/1. b) That it be declared that the name of Plaintiff no. 1 has been wrongly recorded in occupants column of survey no. 11/1 of village Cormonem of Sanguem taluka and consequently the name of Plaintiff Shri Damodar Pundalik Sinai Mopkar which is recorded in occupants column as Govt. leased be deleted from said survey holding 11/1. c) That an area of 7918 square metres shown in yellow colour in the Plan prepared by said Mr. Tito D' Cunha, be ordered to be separated from the Plan area of Survey no. leased be deleted from said survey holding 11/1. c) That an area of 7918 square metres shown in yellow colour in the Plan prepared by said Mr. Tito D' Cunha, be ordered to be separated from the Plan area of Survey no. 11/1, of Cormonem Village, of Sanguem Taluka, and this separated area be exclusively recorded in the name of Government of Goa in Occupant's column, by giving separate subdivision; d) That the name of Govt. of Goa be recorded in oiccupants column in survey no. 11/1 of village Cormonem of Sanguem Taluka having an area of 172741.25 square metres and the name of Plaintiff be recorded in other rights column as leassee as per said Aframento grant title no. 1735 dated 14.3.1949 under Plan No. 15653. e) That the necessary direction be given to the survey authority i.e. Inspector of land survey land records/Director of Survey, Panjim/Mamlatdar of Sanguem/talathi of Sanguem and other concerned authorities to carry out necessary changes as prayed for.” 6. By the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Judge dated 28.12.2006, the suit filed by the Respondents as well as the counter claim filed by the Appellants came to be dismissed. 7. Shri Vivek Rodrigues, learned Addl. Government Advocate, has assailed the impugned Judgment essentially on the ground that according to the Appellants, the source of title of the Respondents is an Aforamento granted in the year 1917 which is at exhibit 21. The learned Counsel further pointed out that on perusal of the said Grant at exhibit 21, the area granted to the Respondents admeasured an area of 172741.25 square metres. Learned Counsel has taken me through the Survey Records in respect of the property surveyed under no. 11/1 of Village Cormonem, Sanguem Taluka and pointed out that as per the said Survey Records, the property surveyed therein admeasured an area of 182450 square metre. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the counter claim has been filed essentially claiming that the Appellants are entitled to the balance area beyond the area of the Aforamento granted to the Appellants admeasuring an area of 9708.75 square metres. Learned Counsel as such submits that the counter claim filed by the Appellants was essentially to seek separation of the survey holding in respect of the property surveyed under no. 11/1 to the extent of the said excess area. Learned Counsel as such submits that the counter claim filed by the Appellants was essentially to seek separation of the survey holding in respect of the property surveyed under no. 11/1 to the extent of the said excess area. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge whilst appreciating the evidence of Dw. 1/Mr. D' Cunha, has refused the relief sought by the Appellants on the erroneous ground that the Appellants were claiming that the Aforamento granted to the Respondents goes beyond the survey no. 11/1. Learned Counsel has in fact taken me through the affidavit filed by the said Dw.1 and pointed out that there is a categorical statement made in the said affidavit at para 7 and pointed out that the said witness had stated that the property surveyed under no. 11/1 is to be separated whereby the excess area showed is part of the property belonging to the Appellants. Learned Counsel as such submits that the learned Judge has mis-appreciated the evidence on record and as such has erroneously refused the counter claim. 8. The Respondents though served have failed to remain present. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the evidence on record, the only point that arises for determination in the present Appeal is as follows: POINT FOR DETERMINATION 1. Whether the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the Counter claim filed by the Appellants? 10. On perusal of the records as well as the evidence pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, it cannot be disputed that as per the original grant of the Aforamento in favour of the Respondents, the area so granted appears to be 172741.25 square metres. On perusal of the promulgated Survey Records, the area of the survey holding in respect of the property surveyed under no. 11/1 is an area of 182450 square metres. Hence, apparently it appears that the area of the property is in excess to the one granted by the Appellants in favour of the Respondents. Whether the said excess area belongs to the Appellants or not is a matter which the learned Judge has not at all appreciated whilst passing the impugned Judgment and disposing the counter claim filed by the Appellants. Whether the said excess area belongs to the Appellants or not is a matter which the learned Judge has not at all appreciated whilst passing the impugned Judgment and disposing the counter claim filed by the Appellants. The learned Judge has failed to consider that it is the specific case of the Appellants that the grant in favour of the Respondents includes only a portion of the property surveyed under no. 11/1 and the excess area according to the Appellants, belongs to the Appellants. To that effect, the counter claim came to be filed for rectifying the Survey Records. The learned Judge has erroneously held that the Dw.1 was claiming that the Aforamento goes beyond the property surveyed under no. 11/1. It is also pertinent to note that it was not the case of the Respondents that any portion of the Aforamento goes beyond the property surveyed under no. 11/1. As such, the only point for determination would be to consider as to whether the survey holdings of the property surveyed under no. 11/1 corresponds to the whole Aforamento granted to the Respondents as per exhibit 21. The learned Judge as such was not justified to refuse to consider in what circumstances the Respondents are entitled to an excess area to the one allotted to them pursuant to the grant at exhibit 21. Considering that the learned Judge has not carried out such exercise whilst deciding the counter claim filed by the Appellants, I find that in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the matter be remanded to the learned Judge to decide the counter claim filed by the Appellants afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.12.2006, dismissing the counter claim filed by the Appellants, deserves to be quashed and set aside. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 12. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.12.2006 dismissing the counter claim is quashed and set aside. Civil Suit no. 281 of 2004 is restored to the file of the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 12. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.12.2006 dismissing the counter claim is quashed and set aside. Civil Suit no. 281 of 2004 is restored to the file of the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao. (iii) The learned District Judge is directed to decide the counter claim filed by the Appellants afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. (iv) All the contentions of the parties on merits are left open. (v) The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs.